Mark Scott using document privilege to waste time in OneCoin case
Mark Scott’s attempts to hide evidence from the government continues…
At issue now are documents Scott claims are privileged, despite having been cleared by an independent taint team.
The first batch of around 30,000 documents has been screened by the taint team for privileged documents.
Having been filtered, documents deemed non-privileged are ready to be turned over to prosecutors.
In a July 10th letter motion, Mark Scott, through his attorney, has asked the court to stop the taint team from handing the documents over.
Scott claims
the taint team has not inspected the vast majority of the documents to determine whether they are privileged.
In support of his claim, Scott states his attorneys
took samples of the approximate 96,357 pages of documents and found a significant number of arguably privileged documents.
Scott goes on to state that some of the documents reference a lawyer that represented him, which he concludes is evidence the taint team hasn’t done their job properly.
The taint team’s sole job is to filter out documents that contain privileged information.
This covers any documents that contain substantive legal content or advice.
At the request of the taint team, Scott provided them with a list of attorneys and clients he’d dealt with.
Scott only agreed to hand over the list of attorneys and clients if the taint team agreed not to share it with the prosecution.
Once received, Scott’s list was added to a filter that, along with other terms, flagged potentially privileged documents for review.
Of the documents seized from Scott last year, there are some 30,000 that have been processed.
Of these documents, 7,800 were triggered by the taint team’s filter.
Each of these documents was individually reviewed by the taint team. This review saw 4200 documents deemed non-privileged and the rest flagged as potentially privileged.
Another filter test was run on the ~21,000 documents not deemed privileged in the first filter run.
This was done in order to
make sure that the key words did not need to be expanded, or that additional key words did not need to be added in order to identify the potentially privileged documents to undergo individual review.
Following this second run, the taint team was satisfied the ~21,000 documents in question were not privileged.
Normally these documents would be turned over to the prosecution. But as per an agreement with Scott, he was given access to the documents beforehand.
The Filter Team requested that the defendant identify documents over which he intended to assert privilege in a privilege log on or before May 14, 2019, so that those documents could be withheld and the remainder released to the Prosecution Team for responsiveness review.
After some back and forth a May 21st deadline was set. Scott never got back to the taint team and the deadline came and went.
In June a second batch of documents were ready for review. The taint team reached out to Scott and asked for a hard drive to copy the second batch of filtered documents onto for review.
Upon receiving communication from the taint team, Scott asked for an extension of time to review the first set of documents (bear in mind by this stage a month had passed since the initial deadline).
Upon conferring with the prosecution, a new July 1st deadline was set.
Of the 25,000+ documents provided to Scott, just ten were flagged as privileged.
It is on this basis Scott argues that the entire privilege process is insufficient.
Having reviewed the ten documents Scott flagged, the taint team cleared nine of them.
The documents contained no legal content or advice, were not prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, were not confidential, or the privilege had been waived by inclusion of a third-party.
Now Scott is also refusing to review any more documents cleared by the taint team.
Scott claims “the process is too burdensome” and that he “does not have the resources to allocate to the review”.
The DOJ has responded to Scott’s financial burden claims by referencing Scott’s credit card records.
Said records detail Scott’s spending of
- $2700 on a one night December 2018 stay in a New York Four Seasons;
- $11,074 spent on Cartier luxury goods on February 15th, 2019;
- $6375 spent on Cartier luxury goods in Massachusetts on December 6th, 2018;
- $3740 spent on a limousine service in Florida on February 4th, 2019;
- $5021 and $4305 spent at a New York steak house in November and December 2018;
- $74,000 spent on Hermes luxury goods in Massachusetts in November 2018.
Whether Scott is personally footing his credit bill is unclear.
In any event, the government cites the above examples as evidence Scott is financially capable or organizing a review of cleared documents should he wish.
They’ve also addressed his assertion of privilege, and asked the court to deny Scott’s request to block the release of non-privileged documents to the prosecution.
The DOJ’s opposition response also renews their
request that the Court order the defense to provide the (attorney/client) List to the Prosecution Team.
The DOJ claims that
The Filter Team would typically provide the Prosecution Team with the list of attorneys (and in the case of attorney defendants like Scott, the list of clients) so that the Prosecution Team was aware of the privileges being asserted by the defendants.
The law is clear that such a list is not privileged and the defendant has failed to provide any support for his assertion that disclosure of the list would violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
What is supposed to happen after release by the taint team is a responsiveness review by the prosecution.
The responsiveness review will essentially determine if the documents are relevant to the case.
Note that this is outside of the scope of the taint team’s duties. Standard legal procedure sees the responsiveness review conducted by the prosecution.
As it stands the court has yet to rule on Scott’s motion.
Given the time sensitivity of the matter (Scott is expected to stand trial later this year), we’re expecting a decision will be made by the end of the week.
Given how hard Scott is fighting to suppress evidence from the DOJ, one can only imagine the treasure trove of goodies the seized documents contain.
Stay tuned…
Geez. How stupid do you have to be to blow $100,000+ to impress the wife, and then cry poor when it comes to spending money on your defense?
This section from the Government response suggests that Scott’s defense are either phenomenally inept, that they lack even basic understanding of the relevant processes, or that, out of desperation, they tried to set a cheap trap to taint the procecution which the Government lawyers aptly called out:
The Government phrasing incicates quite clearly that Scott’s defense seem to acting in bad faith:
And this is what you call monitored house arrest. He just stole and spent all my money…what a joke…he should have never gotten out on bond…
all this from the same guy who says he had no idea that 1life was a scam.
Fresh news is that OC servers got hacked, someone ptomoting Arthur’s coin got onto OC servers and sent a message from OC itself! Security? My A$$!!!!!!!
Wonder who they are going to pay the $100K to for hacking them? They did say they were hack proof and would pay $100K to anyone who could hack them. Now wouldn’t that be icing on the cake!!
Is this supposed hacking verified?
I think it’s possible that they just “spoofed” the email. It’s not that hard fake the sender of an email. Compare the full email header/metadata with the previous emails.
It would be surprising if they made an outright unlawful access to their systems. Duncan seemed genuinely very rattled by his experiences with US authorities (see: youtube.com/watch?v=dz1gHPBh6cY), so I thought he is going to be a relatively straight shooter from now on.
Just spoofing an email would be more in line with their current level depravity.
The jury is still out there, but on the face of it his current project seem more like a confusing pie-in-the-sky than a cynical MLM scam.
At the very least, it’s very un-ethical for him to use OneCoin scam victims as the base for his new enterprise, given his former prominent role in it.
Or perhaps Team Sofia just gave up and lost the OneCoin Civil War?
Mr. Oz,
It appears that Onecoin has struck a deal with this new up coming coin call Bycoi.ie, where you can transfer you onecoin to this ewallet and be able to trade your coins with bitcoin and other coins and convert your coins in fiat money as well.
Do you have any information on this. Is this just another scam on top of an existing scam?
John
It’s not a deal, Duncan Arthur is offering to honor OneCoin balances with his bycoi altcoin.
Bycoi and the platform it’s attached to aren’t MLM so I haven’t looked into it.
RE platincoin
Alex Reynard who was involved in selling OneCoins left about two years ago and set up PLATINCOIN (Ozedit: offtopic, see here https://behindmlm.com/mlm-reviews/platincoin-review-top-swisscoin-investor-launches-own-crypto-scam/ )
It appears that last Tuesday a conference was held regarding the Mark S Scott case:
courtlistener.com/docket/7829201/united-states-v-scott/
No further info. I guess we have to wait till October when the transcript is released.
In USA v Mark S Scott case, a pretrial conference was held yesterday.
So, there should be a new update by Friday. I wonder what the order regarding subpoenas is about.
They can’t be still fighting over this subpoena discussed in February, or can they?
(courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287.48.0.pdf)
My reading of the transcripit is that Scott’s defense was trying fight the subpoena by arguing about technicalities such as the proper entity to be subpoenad — Scott (and Pike) as individuals or the OneCoin money laundering companies they were (sole) custodians to.
@Semjon, I sent you email.
Mark Scott’s trial is set for October 7, 2019.
courtlistener.com/docket/7829201/105/united-states-v-scott/
Hopefully the order isn’t sealed. We’re due for another juicy OneCoin update.
Interesting read:
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287/gov.uscourts.nysd.482287.113.0.pdf
So, because of the Scott’s bad faith obstructionist tactics, the Government is asking for adjournment for the trial that was scheduled to be on October 7th.
Finally The Government will be granted access to the material seized from Scott.
And only after taking a quick bite at the — even limited — material the Government just gained access to, they immediately found some new inctiminating evidence against Scott:
Scott made his bad faith moves out of desparation, because he knew the stuff in the seized material would be incriminating.
Doh, I just checked the docket yesterday too.